1 Cor. 10:13

A while back some indeterminist proponents were using this verse to defend libertarian freedom. The problem with that is they maintain that libertarian freedom is the necessary condition of moral culpability. That means that an agent without that ability would be innocent for any deed he does. If they believe this way of escape that is provided by God is libertarian freedom, then the passage only gives that freedom to believers in God. God doesn’t provide a way of escape for everyone. So, the libertarian would have to maintain all nonbelievers are innocent. Other stuff: Steve Hays: Molinism and 1 … Continue reading 1 Cor. 10:13

“Start with”

Atheist use to present to me the problem of starting points. They use to argue that we must start with ourselves or we must start with logic. That is because if we start anywhere else we would enter incoherence. You would have Christianity without logic and you wouldn’t know Christianity was your starting point because you didn’t know that you exist. The Christian says that he starts with God. How could he start with God at the expense of your own existence and laws of logic? The issue with this criticisms is that they confuse what is meant by “start … Continue reading “Start with”

Compatibalist and Semi-Compatibalist

Over at T-blog a good conversation that I wish not to be lost in a comment section. Paul Manata and Peter Pike are two very intelligent men that had an interesting conversation about freedom and responsibility. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/06/divided-front-libertarians-at-odds-with.html Peter said: Paul said: — Mentally insane people choose “what they desire,” yet I wouldn’t call them free or responsible (at least civically responsible. Responsible before God would entail a larger story, Adam, the fall, headship, so forth). — Just to show that not all us T-bloggers are in lockstep….. I would disagree in that I WOULD call such actions “free.” However, I would agree … Continue reading Compatibalist and Semi-Compatibalist